I have just been looking at some clips shot using an EX1 as a fixed overhead camera on a Manfrotto rig facing directly down over a demon drummer for a tutorial video.

A guy going nuts with drumsticks has to be about the best test ever. If there is an artifact there, I cannot see it.

A side note. If you are mounting the EX1 overhead facing directly down, especially if you have a roomful of redheads, periodically check the back of the camera. It seems to get frighteningly hot in this position and it cannot be good for it.

unless you shoot somewhere that there are photos being taken with flash. rolling shutter really shows its not so pretty head.

best wishes

Can't speak for the EX1, but our EX3 has recorded images while electronic flashes are being used and we have not seen any problems.

Much of both the FUD and denial of this issue could be avoided if people made the effort to understand how a CMOS sensor differs from a CCD sensor. Sony certainly are quite clear on this issue, every EX1 and EX3 camera uses the same designed CMOS sensor. Everyone of the EX1/3 cameras will perform identically unless it has a defect, in regard to how the sensor is scanned.

The use of roller blind shutters predates the invention of the video camera by decades, skewing of vertical lines moving accross the frame and the elongation of carriage wheels is a documented fact known before any of us here were born.

Roller blind shutters (http://licm.org.uk/livingImage/Shutters-Blind.html)

Put simply a CMOS sensor does not 'expose' the whole frame at once. Each roll of pixels is exposed and scanned in sequence from top to bottom. This takes a finite time just as the roller blind shutter took a fixed time to expose the film from top to bottom. In the case of the EX cameras it seems to be 1/60th of a second. This is regardless of shutter speed. Higher shutter speeds will make the effect more obvious by reducing motion blur which typically masks the skew.

There is a significant upside to the use of a CMOS sensor over a CCD. The analogue signals from the photodetectors is more directly routed to the analogue to digital converter(s). The signal gets there with less distortion and noise i.e. a better picture for your money.

So we're all left with a (hopefully) informed choice. Is a rolling shutter going to prevent us from using this camera or would we prefer better quality images for our money. Indeed for some the effect of a rolling shutter will be a show stopper. Sony know this, that's probably one reason they make cameras with CCDs.

What I don't understand is why the issue of flashes exposing only part of a frame is bought up all the time. It's a piece of cake to fix if it does happen. Skew is impossible to fix however but it's rarely an issue that needs fixing outside of specialist scenarios and even then the limitations of the XDCAM encoding system are likely to be an even bigger issue.

Indeed for some the effect of a rolling shutter will be a show stopper. Sony know this, that's probably one reason they make cameras with CCDs.



That's hitting the nail on the head, if there were no problems then all cameras would be using CMOS, but the serious cameras all have CCDs (with the very special exception of the Phantom HD).

It's common sense that if a product comes along that has higher specs AND a lower price than what's currently available then there must be a catch. This is what happened with the EX1, on paper it blows the Sony F900 out of the water (full raster, plus overcranking, OK the codec is not so robust) but at a fraction of the price. Same goes for the RED, Ikonoskop etc., if it sounds too good to be true then it is.

Don't shoot me down, just my thoughts. And I have tried the EX1 and 3 and both instances when filming flying birds I'm still immediately seeing motion issues.

Steve

And I have tried the EX1 and 3 and both instances when filming flying birds I'm still immediately seeing motion issues.

And this is a perfect example of why I say it's a user issue. I've seen footage of flying birds (and aircraft) shot with the EX1 and EX3 that doesn't have any motion issues. How else can it be explained, other than the user?

Well there's nothing the user can do unfortunately, if the birds dives you can't shout at it to tell it do it slowly!

The reason I raise it is that I usually use Varicam, HDCam and formerly Super 16 and never seen it as an issue. Nor have I seen it as an issue on the Phantom HD (which also has a rolling shutter, but it's a very different beast of course).

Also in terms of "user issues" I've never had any complaints after 15 years work, including prime-time network series for the BBC NHU.

Steve

Flying birds or aircraft are very unlikely to show the effect of the EX's rolling shutter.
Just because something is moving quickly has no bearing on you seeing it or not.

Here are some examples of rolling shutter induced skew:

http://web.tiscali.it/rudiversal/images/Rolling%20Shutter%20Effekt%20HC1.JPG

Easy enough to reproduce the exact same thing with an EX1 or EX3 if you're hell bent on seeing it. Drive down a street with the camera pointed out the window, a fast shutter speed helps. You'll notice that verticals close to the camera, for example roadside power poles are skewed away from the direction of travel. Vertical objects further away from the camera display less skew. That's because their rate of motion across the frame is slower than the closer objects. That explains why it's very hard to see in planes and birds.

It also explains why the effect is almost impossible to correct as the amount of deskewing required depends on the distance of each object in the frame from the camera. Even more of an issue is it introduces problems with occlusion.

Of course the above is an unusual shooting scenario and it's therefore a problem that thankfully most of us can remain oblivious to. Even when it does happen it's unlikely it'll be so obvious to the viewer as to be offensive. I've got footage from another camera shot out the window of a train. The closeby power poles are seriously skewed but no one notices as they're too attracted to the scenary.

Flying birds or aircraft are very unlikely to show the effect of the EX's rolling shutter.
Just because something is moving quickly has no bearing on you seeing it or not.

Agreed! But other posters would have us thinking otherwise.

Here are some examples of rolling shutter induced skew:

http://web.tiscali.it/rudiversal/images/Rolling%20Shutter%20Effekt%20HC1.JPG

For some reason I can't access the web site--tried two computers and two different browsers.

Easy enough to reproduce the exact same thing with an EX1 or EX3 if you're hell bent on seeing it. Drive down a street with the camera pointed out the window, a fast shutter speed helps. You'll notice that verticals close to the camera, for example roadside power poles are skewed away from the direction of travel. Vertical objects further away from the camera display less skew. That's because their rate of motion accross the frame is slower than the closer objects. That explains why it's very hard to see in planes and birds.

It also explains why the effect is almost impossible to correct as the amount of deskewing required depends on the distance of each object in the frame from the camera. Even more of an issue is it introduces problems with occlusion.

I'm talking about footage of birds and planes that fill the frame and have both foreground and background imaging. No skewing.

Here's a frame of a race car that is skewed. Guess what camera was used. You can read about it here:
http://maisonbisson.com/blog/post/10531/focal-plane-shutter-distortion/

I've said time an again after testing EX1/3 that I'm not saying it is skew, but it's definitely something
Steve

Steve, I missed this post somewhere along the way.

... but the serious cameras all have CCDs...

I cannot agree with that statement. Suggesting that any camera that uses a CMOS sensor is not a "serious" camera is terribly misleading and erroneous.

What I mean is all the cameras that are considered top-grade broadcast and cinematic cameras - so Sony F900, F23, F35, Panavision Genesis, Panasonic HPX 2700, 3000, 3700. There are specialist cameras like Phantoms with CMOS, and fringe ones like the RED, but the first ones are the mainstream high end cameras from high-end docs to Hollywood and there ain't a CMOS in sight.
Steve

Hmmm... I read about A-list Hollywood directors, shooting Hollywood movies with A-list actors for major theatrical releases, on RED ONE cameras. Am I missing something about there being "ain't a CMOS in sight" on serious high-end projects? Did RED sneak some CCDs in some of their cameras? :)

As I said, they are there on the fringe, check my post.
Steve

There are specialist cameras like Phantoms with CMOS, and fringe ones like the RED, but the first ones are the mainstream high end cameras from high-end docs to Hollywood and there ain't a CMOS in sight.
Steve

That simply isn't true. The Discovery Channel has accepted the EX cameras for 100% of programming. If the The Discovery Channel isn't "high-end", then I don't know what is.

What I mean is all the cameras that are considered top-grade broadcast and cinematic cameras - so Sony F900, F23, F35, Panavision Genesis, Panasonic HPX 2700, 3000, 3700. There are specialist cameras like Phantoms with CMOS, and fringe ones like the RED, but the first ones are the mainstream high end cameras from high-end docs to Hollywood and there ain't a CMOS in sight.
Steve

The fact that there are 5000 REDS out there and that a lot of them are in the hands of credible Hollywood DP's undermines your argument. So there ain't a CMOS in sight except for here, there, and there, and over there, and just about everywhere.

It's still a fringe camera though. As it is in documentary/wildlife and any other TV sphere. Partly because comissioners etc. don't know it and feel uncomfortable with unknown quantities, partly because the post workflow also puts folks out of their comfort zones and partly because there are still plenty of issues with the RED which we're not used to dealing with.

It seems pretty obvious though that some rolling shutters and CMOS sensors and processors are better than others, and as usual I suspect you get what you pay for, so RED is better than EX, and Phantom is better than RED.

Steve

The rolling shutter skew in the EX1/EX3 is currently the only thing that's making me look forward to the next generation of cameras form Sony & Panny etc. I've become more and more aware of it since owning my EX1 and although I can work around it for now, my next camera will not be CMOS powered unless they find a way of improving it's scanning performance.

What sort of thing are you seeing Paul? It'd be nice to know if someone is seeing the same stuff as me so I know I'm not going crazy!
Steve

Paul, how about posting some frame grabs?

Steve, you're not going crazy! Please understand, I'm not saying these things don't exist. I'm just saying they are not as prevalent as some would have us believe.

That simply isn't true. The Discovery Channel has accepted the EX cameras for 100% of programming. If the The Discovery Channel isn't "high-end", then I don't know what is.

Well I'd say some of Discovery output may be high end, but generally that which is co-pro with the BBC. What I do know for certain is that the current high-end wildlife series being filmed by the BBC (Frozen Planet, Life etc.) wouldn't even begin to think about the EX cameras, it's Varicam (and now the 2700) all the way, with Sony F750/900 for underwater and aerial stuff. Even slightly lower down the scale on things like The Natural World (which is still top-flight stuff) and series like Wild China, Ganges etc. etc. you'd be laughed at if you said you were thinking of using an EX3, even though from a wildlife point of view it has many advantages (weight and cost being a big part of it). There has to be a reason why it's not even considered, and there is - it's not up to the job. That doesn't mean it's not upto some jobs, behind the scenes footage etc. (in fact one of the series I'm doing now for BBC is shooting Sony 750 and PDW700 with the EX3 for behind the scenes), and maybe observational docs like Trawlermen, but no way for blue chip wildlife or period dramas and the like.
Steve

There's no denying CMOS has limitations (I don't think anyone is), but to say it's not worthy of A-list productions (or being used for such) is not true. Labeling something 'fringe' is meaningless if high-end, non-fringe productions are being made with CMOS based cameras all the time. But I do like the word 'fringe', it's fun to say. No doubt.

Don't know of any high end productions being done on the EX cameras though. RED yes to a certain extent, Phantom HD and 65 are pretty much as high end as they come.

In the wildlife sphere things like Planet Earth and even way on down the line below that level would not even consider the EX3, I know they don't because I'm involved with them and it's Varicam all the way, unless you're talking crazy high end where you've got a crew in the Masai Mara with an F23/SR rig plus a Phantom as we speak!
Steve

Steve, you're from Wales, so I can see why you think the BBC is the mother-of-all determiners of what's acceptable or not. That's fine, no worries. But National Geo HD, Discovery HD, etc., and plenty of big Hollywood productions are fine with quality CMOS-based cameras for primary footage. If you know a camera and its pros and cons, someone who knows what they're doing can produce fantastic footage. If you don't think CMOS works specifically for your niche shooting, that's fine, but that doesn't make CMOs 'fringe' just because. Having preferences is fine. CCD is plenty good. Big Hollywood film shooters might consider CCD fringe too, or anything digital, but that doesn't make it so.

These kinds of discussions are plenty useless, I guess I must be bored, ha! Anyway, it's FRIIIIIIDAY! Woo hoo!

Much of both the FUD and denial of this issue could be avoided if people made the effort to understand how a CMOS sensor differs from a CCD sensor. Sony certainly are quite clear on this issue, every EX1 and EX3 camera uses the same designed CMOS sensor. Everyone of the EX1/3 cameras will perform identically unless it has a defect, in regard to how the sensor is scanned.


What I don't understand is why the issue of flashes exposing only part of a frame is bought up all the time. It's a piece of cake to fix if it does happen.

Hi Bob,

I understand the differences between CMOS & CCDs as I first encountered the RS phenomenon with my V1 camera a couple of years ago, well before the EX1 existed and investigated it. That being said, the flash/rolling shutter issue is the clearest way to describe the problem. It is also easily replicated and of course it is the easiest example to view.

If I might ask, how do you fix the flash/rolling shutter issue please?

Thanks very much.

I think for bang vs buck for overall image quality, dynamic range, low noise and color depth, CMOS leads CCD for now. This is why in the consumer / prosumer field CCD cameras are scarcer and scarcer even from 2 years ago. Right now the only new CCD based cameras in that class are Panasonic and they are phasing out CCD in their AVCHD consumer line and now use CMOS. It seems from a manufacturing standpoint CMOS can produce images that impress customers and are less expensive to manufacture for a given image quality.

That being said, because of my special requirements, rolling shutter affects me I have a need to use a CCD based camcorder. This is why I was excited about the new Panasonic HMC150, their AVCHD camcorder whose image quality is similar to their P2 based camera that records on SDHC cards, at a very good price point. However, after testing it, the image quality under normal conditions was not close to my EX1, and the AVCHD workflow was very costly, in terms of transcoding time and archiving.

In addition, JVC announced their new CCD based camcorder series that uses the EX codec. If the JVC is close or better in image quality to the HMC150, I will purchase one, primarily because it is a CCD camcorder and will not exhibit rolling shutter, but I'll be able to use the same workflow as the EX.

I think for the vast majority of shooting, the rolling shutter issue is not a factor. If you have special requirements like me, you may need to consider a CCD-based than the EX1. I think that Steve Phillips has a point that currently, CCD based acquisition outnumbers CMOS in the high end, but I don't think this is because of a problem with CMOS image quality and it's rolling shutter, I think it because, until the last 2 years CMOS was not considered to be high enough quality for a manufacturer of high end camcorders to consider it.

Sony started using CMOS with their first handycam series, I purchased one of the first, the Sony HC1, they then continued on with their prosumer and now their EX series. Other manufacturers followed suit. The engineers at RED obviously based a lot of their future on their confidence in CMOS quality, when they could have chosen CCD.

It's hard to know if CCD has a future. However, given the same image quality, dynamic range, and resolution, I wouldn't hesitate to purchase a CCD-based camcorder over a CMOS-based camcorder because I know that CCD camcorder will allow me more versatility, just because it doesn't have a rolling shutter.

There may come a time with CMOS rolling shutter will be 100% a non-issue, I think they are working on improving it with faster scan rates, etc and and some point in the future we may not be able to tell the difference, and then it will be a cost vs quality issue of the 2 technologies.

Hi Bob,

I understand the differences between CMOS & CCDs as I first encountered the RS phenomenon with my V1 camera a couple of years ago, well before the EX1 existed and investigated it. That being said, the flash/rolling shutter issue is the clearest way to describe the problem. It is also easily replicated and of course it is the easiest example to view.

If I might ask, how do you fix the flash/rolling shutter issue please?

Thanks very much.

Replace it with a frame of white, worked for me.
Then again this would become very tedious if you had a lot of them to deal with.
It's quite possible that someone could write a plugin to automate the process, at least in part.

Steve, you're from Wales, so I can see why you think the BBC is the mother-of-all determiners of what's acceptable or not. That's fine, no worries. But National Geo HD, Discovery HD, etc., and plenty of big Hollywood productions are fine with quality CMOS-based cameras for primary footage. If you know a camera and its pros and cons, someone who knows what they're doing can produce fantastic footage. If you don't think CMOS works specifically for your niche shooting, that's fine, but that doesn't make CMOs 'fringe' just because. Having preferences is fine. CCD is plenty good. Big Hollywood film shooters might consider CCD fringe too, or anything digital, but that doesn't make it so.

These kinds of discussions are plenty useless, I guess I must be bored, ha! Anyway, it's FRIIIIIIDAY! Woo hoo!

I don't have preferences at all, I just use what I'm told to use.
I think it's fair to use the BBC as a benchmark, certainly in my field of wildlife production - if you can show me anything bigger and mor ehigh end than Planet Earth I'd be surprised, and Frozen Planet is of similar scale and it's straight onto Varicam and HDCam. As are all the other big blue chip series that are either in production or in planning.
CMOS cameras are still on the fringe for high end work regardless of what you say - they may be big for indie shooters, and RED is being used on a very small number of features relatively speaking. But I still don't know of a single high end doc or feature that was shot on an EX1/3, and nobody I work for has been asking for it.
Steve

Can anyone point me to any high end wildlife docs that Discovery or Nat Geo are doing on the EX cameras, just out of general interest?
Steve

Don't know of any high end productions being done on the EX cameras though. RED yes to a certain extent, Phantom HD and 65 are pretty much as high end as they come.
In the wildlife sphere things like Planet Earth and even way on down the line below that level would not even consider the EX3, I know they don't because I'm involved with them and it's Varicam all the way, .......
True though all that is, I don't really think it says anything abut rolling shutters and CMOS.

If I had to specify a camera for a Planet Earth type production, then indeed I'd prefer a 2700 over an EX3, but for reasons of lens availability, 2/3" chips, and all sort of other features. If the 2700 had CMOS chips with rolling shutter, and the EX3 had CCDs, I'd still choose the 2700 for this type of work.

I'm not saying rolling shutters are a good thing, but if they they are the price to pay for better dynamic range, resolution, lower smearing and sensitivity without paying a fortune more, then isn't it worth it?

That makes it sounds like a close-run decision though David, which it quite clearly isn't. For these types of projects the EX3 wouldn't even be talked about let alone considered as a serious possibility, no mre than a 2/3" Digibeta would be.
Steve

Maybe some perspective is needed here.

Yes, Steve has used the EX cameras, he has stated that many times.

And I agree with what he is saying about "high end" cameras and television production. It may sound elitist, but why would BBC, Discovery etc... favor an $8,000 camera over a $40,000+ camera if they have the resources or requirements?

The EX3 is a nice camera, but it is a 1/2" chip image quality bang for your buck camera.

I never understand why people try to defend their camera like they have discovered the great image quality and other people need to get with the program.

These large broadcasters use the more expensive cameras for their important projects because they produce better images with a larger amount of lens choices.

It is great the "lower end" of products in the camera world is coming up to meet the high end in terms of affordable image quality, but that does not mean that all are viewed as equal.

That makes it sounds like a close-run decision though David, which it quite clearly isn't. For these types of projects the EX3 wouldn't even be talked about let alone considered as a serious possibility, no mre than a 2/3" Digibeta would be.
I think you're taking me the wrong way. For such a project I'm fully AGREEING with you that a 2700 would be far more acceptable than an EX3 - but for lots of other reasons than rolling shutters.

If the 2700 had a rolling shutter, and the EX3 didn't, I'm saying the choice for the work you refer to would almost certainly still be for the 2700.

What I mean is all the cameras that are considered top-grade broadcast and cinematic cameras - so Sony F900, F23, F35, Panavision Genesis, Panasonic HPX 2700, 3000, 3700. There are specialist cameras like Phantoms with CMOS, and fringe ones like the RED, but the first ones are the mainstream high end cameras from high-end docs to Hollywood and there ain't a CMOS in sight.

REDs are, as you say, on the fringe but I would say that is because they have only been out for about about 16 or so months! FWIW, I was at the Montreal premiere of Soderberg's epic "Che" (the "Roadshow Edition." No previews, commercials or even credits... just 4h18m with a short intermission... it was awesome) yesterday which was shot exclussivly with the RED with a small exception for some footage shot with a super 16mm Aaton. It was beautiful.

I agree with Tim's post entirely.
If the EX cameras are not "top-of-the-line" cameras then why wouldn't they be considered? They're cheaper and much more compact - you'd have to be stupid not to use them if the image quality were the same as the Varicam/750 et al, so it stands to reason that they're not.
That's why I asked out of genuine interest for examples of high end docs on Nat Geo etc. that have been shot on the EX cameras, because I don't know of any - but that's not to say there haven't been any. All I know is that of the high end and even mid-high end wildlife progs I've known of or been involved in none have used the EX cameras. So again, examples would be interesting to me if you have any.
Steve

I don't think the EX are a bad choice for production at all, just for high end docs - that's what I said.

I actually really like the EX3, it's a really nice camera to work with, viewfinder is nice, change from 720 variable speeds to 1080 is easy, few grumbles like the little fiddly switches are a pain, but on the whole it's really nice - and small, light, the batteries are tiny and last forever.

For your information I look at all the forums, don't think there's any rule that you can't view a forum unless you use that gear is there?
I just asked for eamples of programmes on EX cameras as you seemed so sure there was a lot of high end stuff out there I assumed you must be thinking of specific projects, or is it just conjecture?
Steve

I'm not sure how revelatory it is to say the EX isn't as good as a $90,000 camera. Varicams aren't taken seriously by Hollywood. Where we going with this?

I don't care what camera a production uses. If they tell me to operate it, I will. All I need to know is that it has a lens and a record button.

I'm not sure how revelatory it is to say the EX isn't as good as a $90,000 camera. Varicams aren't taken seriously by Hollywood. Where we going with this?

Exactly, that's why I was surprised to be told that the EX cameras were used on high end docs for Nat Geo etc., it was new to me. But I'm happy to be proved wrong if someone can let me know something high end that was shot with them, I genuinely am.
It's true I don't get to se much Nat Geo, and the only Discovery stuff I see is the copros with BBC. Most recent high end wildlife stuff I've seen has all been Varicam: Planet Earth, Ganges, Wild China, Nature's Great Events, Life in Cold Blood, the list goes on. Same goes for all high end stuff in production; Frozen Planet, Life, plus various series on Madagascar, the Great Rift and others.
I can only report what I know. I've also seen Bob Landis and Neil Retig doing stuff for PBS Nature on HDW730 and Varicam respectively, and Derek Joubert doing a Nat Geo leopard prog on HPX3000.
Steve

I agree with Tim's post entirely.
If the EX cameras are not "top-of-the-line" cameras then why wouldn't they be considered? They're cheaper and much more compact - you'd have to be stupid not to use them if the image quality were the same as the Varicam/750 et al, so it stands to reason that they're not.
That's why I asked out of genuine interest for examples of high end docs on Nat Geo etc. that have been shot on the EX cameras, because I don't know of any - but that's not to say there haven't been any. All I know is that of the high end and even mid-high end wildlife progs I've known of or been involved in none have used the EX cameras. So again, examples would be interesting to me if you have any.
Steve

I no longer have the link to the video or recall the names however the gent who shot Bugs 3D is shooting his next 3D feature with two EX3s and the P+S Techniks 3D mirror rig. As he shows in the video one man can lift the entire rig. The rig his previous 3D movie was shot with needed 4 guys to lift it.
Many wildlife docos are shot on 1/2" cameras, generally tape or optical disk cameras though. Reason is simple enough. The camera and lenses are ever so much lighter. March of the Penguins was shot on S16 because only S16 would give them 1,000' loads, changing mags in a blizzard was not an option.
Slumdog Millionaire was largely shot with the SI-2K. Crucial scenes arguably could not have been shot with any other camera. Being a single chip S16 sized CMOS sensor it will have as much skew as the EXs and possibly less resolution but definately better latitude. It'll very easily take expensive and very fast glass. It's also very small.

What all the above shows is serious people involved in serious production choose cameras that are the best fit to the required performance envelope. No one thinks "Oh, we've got this camera, what sort of movie can I make with it?" It's equally silly to think just because someone shot something with camera XYZ it's good enough or not for anything. If the production is costing $1M / day of course they're going to go for the best cameras and lenses money can buy but even then optics are chosen for their look, same applies to film stock. Same production might also shoot some footage with an EX as a crash cam, that proves nothing other than their DP knew what he was doing.

I could add that certain scenes of a local episodic TV series that has global distro in HD were shot with one of our HC7s. That in no way implies that a HC7 is good enough for HD drama. It was in an underwater housing, the shots were in mirky water.

I'll be controversial here but I'm actually looking forward to seeing EX footage in wildlife films. I know the BBC use Varicam but I have to say I wish they wouldn't, it just not as punchy as a proper 1080 camera. "Planet Earth" is a great Ad for HD, the most stunning parts of it were the aerials, I believe these were actually shot 1080.

My wife can actually tell the difference now and that's saying something, she's very disappointed with the new BBC series "Natures Great Events" which looks like it was mostly Varicam.

As has been said Discovery HD have accepted the EX format for 100% Silver Production which presumably means they would be happy with an entire wildlife series to be shot in it.

I am selling my EX1 as the rolling shutter is way to much. Shot another wedding yesterday(day and night shoot) and was surrounded by photographers and flashes going off, man i'm over it. At first I thought I could handle this shutter thing but that's it.

I love this camera and it's image but the rolling shuuter is/has forced me to sell.

Regards
Simon

I'll be controversial here but I'm actually looking forward to seeing EX footage in wildlife films. I know the BBC use Varicam but I have to say I wish they wouldn't, it just not as punchy as a proper 1080 camera. "Planet Earth" is a great Ad for HD, the most stunning parts of it were the aerials, I believe these were actually shot 1080.

My wife can actually tell the difference now and that's saying something, she's very disappointed with the new BBC series "Natures Great Events" which looks like it was mostly Varicam.

As has been said Discovery HD have accepted the EX format for 100% Silver Production which presumably means they would be happy with an entire wildlife series to be shot in it.

I can tell the difference too now I have a Bluray player and a big screen. Yes the aerials were shot 1080 HDCam as were the underwater shots. Wildlife progs can't really use 1080 cams as you always need slomo, even the Varicam at 60fps is not really enough.
But as for stopping using the Varicam and using EX3s I wouldn't get your hopes up, it's not even an option that's ever discussed excpet for really special circumstances.
As for the Discovery situation I'm pretty sure each project would be discussed on a case by case basis and if it were a 6x1 hour, blue chip, high end wildlife doc budgeted at arounf $1 million per programme I'm pretty sure they'd not consider EX3 (I might be wrong, it's just conjecture), and it wouldn't be just because they could afford a more expensive camera.
Steve

As for the Discovery situation I'm pretty sure each project would be discussed on a case by case basis and if it were a 6x1 hour, blue chip, high end wildlife doc budgeted at arounf $1 million per programme I'm pretty sure they'd not consider EX3 (I might be wrong, it's just conjecture), and it wouldn't be just because they could afford a more expensive camera.
Steve

Well of course at that budget they should use RED! - I'm not saying the EX series are the best cameras out there, however the days of budgets like that are disappearing VERY fast, perhaps not in the license fee funded world of the Beeb, but in commercial television times are hard and it is likely to get a lot harder and that's where cameras like the EX are likely to play a part. Not all wildlife Programming is done on BBC budgets.

There's no doubt at all that the EX and other budget cameras have a big place in broadcast, but it was the high end programmes (ie well budgeted) that we were debating.
Budgets are getting tighter at the Beeb too, and in fact most of their big budget stuff is copro - often with Discovery or NHK or WGBH and other commercial bodies. They are also doing cinema-bound progs with Disney Nature, including one in Africa with an F23/SR + Phantom HD duo.

I still would be very very interested if someone could tell me of a blue chip wildlife prog that was shot with the EX, not to make any sort of point, I'd just be genuinely interested to see what it looks like. Anybody?

Steve

Wildlife progs can't really use 1080 cams as you always need slomo, even the Varicam at 60fps is not really enough.
But as for stopping using the Varicam and using EX3s I wouldn't get your hopes up, it's not even an option that's ever discussed excpet for really special circumstances.
Well the BBC seem happy enough to use cameras for super slow mo that produce pretty poor images with nasty vertical banding. There are many 1080 cameras that can overcrank, I expect it has a lot to do with all the sponsorship and free kit that Panasonic give the NHU.

There are many high-end productions made on RED ONEs and EX1s/EX3s. I don't have time to search for lists for you, but perhaps we are differing on what is "high end". If you're thinking of paid-for budgets by the BBC to send you on assignment, then that's not what I'm talking about because that means nothing to me. I'm talking about getting air time on the big channels, like Nat'l Geo or Discovery, Travel, etc. You don't need a "big budget" for that at all. Shows like Survivorman are filmed on cameras much lesser than EX1's, but that's a very successful show. Man vs. Wild often uses a little Panasonic HVX200, that's not "big budget", but look at the end results of the show's success. That's what I'm talking about. I'm working on stuff that I know will someday air on those channels. But it takes time to develop a show/documentary, and the EX1 and EX3 are relatively new. Using an EX1 allows me to compete with the big budgets for the same air time because the footage is freakin' amazing. If I get a series or a documentary shown on Nat'l Geo HD, I call that 'high end' because of who they are. If I get a showing on the local PBS channel, then no, that's obviously not high end. Don't get "money" and "budgets" confused with "quality". That's the magic of the Sony EX1 and EX3, they allow a small guy production to have the "specs" that can get on the big channels. Does that mean the EX1 is as good as a big fat shoulder-mounted 2/3" CCD camera? Of course not. But for what I shoot I wouldnt' even WANT one of those because how am I gonna put that on my kayak deck, or on multi-day backpacking trips, or up 14,000' High Sierra peaks? But the quality of footage from the EX1, properly shot, is spectacular even with limitations and will get me on the high end channels. Big budget? Heck no, it's mostly just me and my camera and the wilderness. High end potential? You betcha.

I also use Microdolly jibs and dolly/track. Is that "big budget"? No (it's still not cheap though for little 'ole me, ha!). Big budget productions would use big cranes and sit-on dollys on big fatty tracks and fancy lights, etc. But I can compete with those guys in my market on the best HD channels available with my Sony EX1, light Microdolly gear, Sennheiser MKH 416 mic, and editing on my home Mac Pro with a Kona 3 card, Final Cut Studio, and CalDigit Raid 5 system. They may have a multi-million dollar studio and mine might be $40 grand but I can submit programming in my niche to these high end channels and go head-to-head, and even beat them. That's the magic of the digital revolution and the affordable, high quality tools available to guys with dreams and creativity but, previously, had no 'real outlet'. The playing field has been leveled and I'm excited about it. I couldn't do what I'm doing with a $60,000+ camera even if I could afford it, they're just too big and heavy. I'm also excited about this RED Scarlet coming out. These small form cameras with spectacular footage capabilities is what it's all about for me. And the future keeps getting brighter! (recession be damned!). :^D

Well Buck I'm in agreement with you. There's nothing wrong with the EX1/3 for lots of work, but not blue chip wildlife stuff. I think the stuff you're talking about is people observational type programmes for which the smaller cameras are ideal to work with.
Alister, I think you're referring to the Photron, and I agree with you, it's not great. At the time it was pretty much the best choice, but it's not even in the same league as the Phantom HD which is a gem of a camera - and with a rolling shutter too!!!
Steve

What does any of this natter matter? There would be some point if someone was seeking advice for their upcoming DOP job. You define the requirement, you select the gear best suited within all the trade-offs.

What does any of this natter matter? There would be some point if someone was seeking advice for their upcoming DOP job. You define the requirement, you select the gear best suited within all the trade-offs.

And because most of us here own an EX camera, they are naturally going to at least be considered as first camera of choice.